Kolkata Court May 1914 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Moheswari Prosad Singh Deo Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.945
1. This was a Rule calling upon the Deputy Commissioner of Singbhum to show cause way the proceedings described in the application should not be quashed on the ground that thy British Courts had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of retention of stolen articles outside British India. The Deputy Commissioner was further requested to inform this Court whether Panposh or rather the post office building at Panposh ware or were not within British territory.2. It is admitted that the village Panposh is not within British territory excepting a certain portion of it which comprises the premises of the Bengal-Nagpur Railway Co. It is also a admitted that Khar Sawan, the place where the petitioner resides, is beyond British territory the , offence under Section 411, Indian Penal Code, is said to have been commited by the petitioner at Khar Sawan which is beyond British territory. The question, therefore, is whether the petitioner who has not been prosecuted for theft, but for having been found i...
Srimati Indubala Dasee Vs. Srimati Panchumani Dasee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal417,28Ind.Cas.578
1. This is an appeal against an order refusing to allow the appellant to oppose the grant of probate of a Will, on the ground that she has no interest sufficient to enable her to appear in proceedings on an application for probate. The order is, therefore, one refusing to make the appellant a party to the proceedings, it was held in the case of Khettra Moni Dasi v. Shyama Churn Kundu 21 C. 539 that no appeal lies against such an order, and that case has recently been followed in Sri Proshad Narayan Singh V. Dulhin Genda Koer 22 Ind. Cas. 276 : 18 C.L.J. 612.2. We accordingly hold that no appeal lies against the order, and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. We make no order as to costs.Rule No. 346 Of 1914.3. We can, however, deal with the order under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code in the Rule which was granted in the case.4. The petitioner is the widow of the predeceased son of one Haridas, and the opposite party is the widowed daughter of Haridas. The opposite party applied...
Srimati Ishani Dasi and ors. Vs. Gopal Chandra Dey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal9,25Ind.Cas.236
Fletcher, J.1. The only question raised by these five rules is whether a sum of Rs. 2,000, payable by the Oriental Government Security Life Assurance Company, Limited, under or by virtue of a policy of assurance on the life of one Radha Kishore De numbered 24003 is - available for the payment of the debts of Radha Kishore De. Radha Kishore De was a Hindu. He died in the month of January 1913. The opposite parties to these rules are his heirs.2. Radha Kishore in his life-time effected the policy in question on his own life for the benefit of his wife and children. The policy purports to be issued under the provisions of the Married Women's Property Act, 1874. The question for our determination is, does Section 6 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1874, apply to a policy of assurance effected by a Hindu on his own life for the benefit of his wife and children? In the present case the assured has not purported to create any trust in respect of the money payable under the policy. Unless,...
Sukumari Ghose and ors. Vs. Haladhar Mandal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal685,24Ind.Cas.434
1. These appeals arise out of six suits for the recovery of possession of certain chur land in the District of Dacca. The plaintiffs' case is that they wore inducted on to the land in or after the year 1902 by the Nawab of Dacca and his co-sharers, who were then the zemindars in actual possession as such. Thereafter, a suit was brought for the recovery of possession of the land by Mr. Lal Mohan Ghose. That suit ended in a compromise in favour of Mr. Ghose, who thereupon settled his own tenants on the chur and dispossessed the plaintiffs. These are the facts alleged, and they are, we think, the facts found by the lower Appellate Court, which has decreed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs were raiyats, and not trespassers, and were, therefore, entitled to recover possession on the principle laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Binad Lal Pakrashi v. Kalu Pra manik 20 C. 708.2. On behalf of the appellants it is contended that the Full Bench case just cited is distinguishable,...
Ashraf Ali and ors. Vs. Muhammed Ali and ors. and Chhidik Ali and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal873,24Ind.Cas.618
1. These appeals arise out of two suits for the recovery of possession of certain lands in Mauzas Bagmara and Sujanagar in the District of Sylhet the suits were decreed in favour of the plaintiff and the defendants are the appellants before us.2. The first point raised by the learned Counsel in support of the appeal is that the plaintiff's case rest : entirely on a thak-bust map prepared in the year 1864, which on the facts referred to the judgments of the Courts below is wholly unreliable and worthless, and which has not been and cannot be properly relied. The revenue survey, which followed the thak of the district of Sylhet was apparently not approved by the Local Government under Sections 3 and 4 of the Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Act of 1847. In 1864 the lands were either jungle or submerged, and therefore, no proper thak could have been prepared. There was no field measurement : the trijunction or starting point could not be fixed, with accuracy and generally, it is urged, the at...
Surya Kant a Ghattak Vs. Ananda Mohan Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.866
Woodroffe, J.1. The question in this case is whether or not the plaintiff is barred from recovering rent in respect of one of the properties in suit by reason of the fact that he has not been registered under the provisions of Section 78 of the Land Registration Act, VII of 1876. Such registration is not necessary if it can be shown that his case falls within the provisions of Section 81 which speaks of written contracts. The learned Judge was of opinion, though as he says with some doubt, that Section 81 did not avail the plaintiff in this case because, as ho was disposed to road that section, it referred to a contract between the proprietor himself and his tenants, that is, the parties themselves, and not to a contract entered into either between the predecessors of the parties or between a successor of one of the parties and another original party.2. In the present case, there was a registered kabuliat executed by Ananda Mohan Chattopadhya in favour of Amrita Lal Bandopadhya. The pr...
Hannah Vs. Juggernath and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR42Cal262
Jenkins, C.J.1. The plaintiffs, Messrs. Juggernath & Co. are described in the heading of the plaint as a firm carrying on business as jute balers and shippers and merchants at No. 117, Harrison Road, in the town of Calcutta.2. The defendants are E. C. H. Cresswell, H. A. Smyth, and Geoffrey Watson, who carry on business in co-partnership as Jute Balers, Brokers, and Merchants, under the name of Messrs. Moran & Co. at 11, Lull Bazar Street, Calcutta, and G. S. Hannah and C. L. Smallwood, who carry on business in co-partnership as Jute Balers, Brokers and Merchants under the name of Messrs. W. Ha worth & Co. at No. 1, Mission Row. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff firm has been and is the proprietor of four jute trade-marks set forth in the schedule, and the plaintiff's cane is that on the 8th of July 1911 the defendants Moran & Co. s and on the 1st of March 1912 the defendants Ha worth & Co. acquired the right to rise and permit the use of these trade marks, and that in ret...
Maharaja Jagadindra Nath Roy Vs. Mohendra Nath Mozumdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1914
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.90
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent. The case for the plaintiff is that the defendants are occupancy raiyats in respect of a large tract of land within his estate which was has settled with him by Government for a period of 10 years from 1st April 1909, The plaintiff alleges that the rent payable by the defendants has been fixed at Rs. 1,659-13-0 in the settlement proceedings, and he claims to recover arrears at that rate. The defendants contend that the rent was payable at the annual rate of Rs. 1,239-9-12 gds. that such rate has not been affected by the proceedings of the settlement authorities and that whatever was due has been paid to the landlord. The Courts below have concurrently dismissed the suit.2. On the present appeal it has been argued that under Section 9 of Regulation VII of 1822, the rent payable by the defendants was, as a result of the settlement proceedings, enhanced to Rs. 1,659-13-0 per annum. In our opinion there is no f...
Bejoy Krishna Majumdar Vs. Dwarika Krishna Majumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal847,25Ind.Cas.218
1. One Kali Krishna Mojumdar died leaving all his property by Will to his widow and to his adopted son, Bejoy Krishna Mojumdar. The boy was then only three or four years old. The Will provided for the management of the property by a number of executors, among whom one, the testator's nephew, Dwarika Krishna Mojumdar, was appointed the principal managing executor and was instructed to take out probate. Probate of the Will was accordingly granted to Dwarika Krishna in 1892 and the management of the property was in his hands. In 1908 the adopted son, Bejoy Krishna Mojumdar, applied to the Probate Court for an order revoking the probate granted to his cousin, Dwarika Krishna, in order that he might undertake the management of the property himself. The application was opposed by Dwarika Krishna. This litigation ended in a compromise under which the adopted son undertook to pay Dwarika Krishna the sum of Rs. 4,500 as reimbursement of expenses personally incurred and the latter consented to r...
Srimati Jagat Tara Debya Chowdhurani Vs. Narmada Kanta Bakerji Chowdhu ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Cal741,24Ind.Cas.801
Mullick, J.1. The length of the arguments and the present appeal appears to be disproportionate to the value of the subject-matter, which is a piece of land worth Rs. 40. The plaintiff prays for declaration of title 'and khas possession.2. Defendants Nos. 1 and 6 are admittedly under-raiyats inducted into the land by plaintiff's husband. They state that they have been dispossessed by defendants Nos. 7, 8 and 9 and that they have no further interest in the land. The contesting defendants Nos. 7 and 9 claim to be co-sharers in the holding with the plaintiff's husband and allege that plaintiff being a mere benamidar, for them and her husband, is not entitled to sue. Defendant No. 8, who is the brother of defendants Nos. 7 and 9. does not enter appearance. The Munsif and the Subordinate Judge have both dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff is a benamidar and has no right to maintain the suit. The plaintiff prefers this second appeal against the Sub-Judge's decree.3. The first...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »